Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
Jul 27, 2011 2:30pm PDT
that this is the appropriate work. this is not something we would want to pay for. >> mr. brooks is giving a scope of work and he just to find it as the language which is not in scope of work but rather an indication of what would be done anyway. >> i don't want to get hung up on the terminology. we believe that we can amend the contract. we can work with whoever to figure out what those tasks are. mr. brooks would like you to accept the list that has been prepared that we have objected to. we do not believe these of the tasks that are appropriate. we would like it to be included so that you can force the staff to agree with them rather than the regular negotiation process. >> we should not because -- i would be happy to go over this. this continue refers back to the 2007 ordinances which talk about a 360 megawatt program. we offered you a 30 megawatt program and one was to reduce debt and some because of the risk involved. trying to implement a program that we are not trying to implement is a strange thing to try to get someone to do. we're looking at a rollout and having someone to work for the 60 megaw
Jul 29, 2011 11:00am PDT
with in their further thoughts as well. are there public comments on this item? >> eric brooks, i am here representing san francisco green party. i was glad to hear a lot of commissioners raise a lot of concerns about financials of the potential for this program rolling out. you can potentially continue it or you can send it on to the board of supervisors. i know they are hot to put something forward on the second and we might want to afford them that opportunity. that item has to do with the local power part of that item has to do with preparation work for the local build out. years ago made very clear that the more of a local build of renewables and efficiency that your cca program has, the lower your price can be to your customers and a much lower -- the lower you can get all of the risks that you are talking about. i just want to correct a little bit your general manager. the advocate side of this debate if you can call it that hasn't been saying that you can do what the staff wants to do at pge prices. we know you can't do that. what we have been saying is that if you do the robust work we ask fo
Jul 29, 2011 2:30pm PDT
brooks. i'm here representing san francisco green party and local grass roots organization in our city. i would policeman phi the err of frustration but take a slightly different trajectory, as i think a lot of us as advocates, i'm sure you have seen in the media, we have our own concerns about how the s.f. p.u.c.'s program may be moving forward, what the term sheet might look like. we have for several months gone back with s.f. p.u.c. staff and s.f. p.u.c. commissioners about the specific concerns. and i think that we've reached a point in that process where since the term sheet is just sitting at the s.f. p.u.c., it's become an insillar process and it's gone forward about as well as it can go. so i would agree that it's time now that ab-117 makes the board of supervisors the implementing body for this policy. it's time now for the term sheet to move from the s.f. p.u.c. and get to the board of supervisors, where we as advocates feel like we can in a new forum that's working actually to make this policy happen immediately, where we can work with the board of supervisors on the conce
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)